Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
Young guy, buying a Mercury Sable, oops, I mean a Mazda RX-8, a sports car, and you want to know why you pay $2,000 for car insurance???
Please call back when your hangover has worn off...:):):):):)
I'll try not to take the comment about having a hangover too seriously lol. Anyway, I don't understand it because I have gotten quotes for other cars, such as the new eclipse GT which has quite a bit more power than the RX-8 and I got quoted at $1300 a year for that. I got quoted at only 1800 a year for a used 2001 C5 corvette but that car costs $10k more than the RX-8 I want so it's out of my price range at the moment.
I'm just wondering why I have to pay so much for insurance on this car, but more specifically if there is anything I can do to lower my rates. I noticed the RX-8 was also considered a "4 door coupe" which I thought would bring down the insurance as well. It just seems like it's all backwards but if this is what other people my age are paying I guess there is not a whole lot that I can do about it.
Also, the quote I got was with 15k/30k coverage, 5k property damage, limited tort, 5k medical, and $1000 deductibles. I don't think i should need anymore coverage than that as I have limited assets to protect. I don't own a home and just have my saving account/cd's and vehicle to protect under my name.
And I currently own a 1999 Grand Prix that I pay ~900/ yr for with the same coverage level as the quote on the RX-8
The RX-8 may be considered a sports car and therefore more likely to get in a crash. Insurance companies put cars in different risk groups based on their guess of which ones have the better chance of costing them money.
I don't know about the Corvette but I had a similar experience getting a quote on the Eclipse (it was the same as the cost of insuring the Galant sedan).
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
From a cost viewpoint, I understand, but, in the event you ever cause a serious crash with serious injuries, you will understand why, morally, minimum limits borders on sinful behavior...
Once you understand why, then you will certainly understand that if the circumstances were reversed and THEY caused a serious crash with serious injuries, you would be first in line screaming about how could ANYONE only carry minimum limits...
Trust me on this...
As for my coverage I was only taking my assets and belongings into consideration, I will search posts by your name though to try to find the ones you are talking about. I'll have no problem raising those limits though they seem rather inexpensive to raise up, it is the collision coverage where I am getting raped.
Thanks again, keep the info coming
I was in a little fender bender earlier this week. At first it appeared as though there was only minmial damage. However, I have realized that the damage is significantly more than it had initially appeared. The impact caused the coolant to leak all over the engine unit, resulting in damage to the electronics and the engine control unit.
I dont believe this was my fault, and am wondering if I should file a claim for the repairs? I have attached a snapshot from the police report. Based on this information, would you say that the insurance company will find Driver 1 or Driver 2 at fault?
Thank you in advance for your advice!
thx again
(a) We have only your rendition of the "facts."
and
(b) The figure cannot be an accurate rendition because the text indicates the initial speed of Driver #2 was 5 mph which is inconsistent with starting in lane 3.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
The details that I avoided posting (to be objective) which may in-turn be causing some confusion are as follows: Driver #2 was in the left turn lane where traffic was backed up significantly. Driver #1 was in the middle lane where traffic was flowing smoothly. Driver #2 decided to suddenly change lanes and merge into the middle lane without providing sufficient room or time for oncoming Driver #1. Thus the collision.
The one thing that I will say is that I dont know where the speed information came from. The police officer did not ask either of us for this information, and given the remaining details provided, must have deduced this himself.
Hope this helps
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
My inference is that there are elements missing in the depiction such as the road is actually curved or there were more than two vehicles closeby when the incident occurred. Any number of such missing elements could tip the scale of responsibility in either direction.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
If the next lane isn't clear, you don't veer.
Not if the other driver is moving along at speeds unreasonable or imprudent for existing conditions! :P
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
The only potential problem I see for the OP is if s/he is in a comparative negligence state where carriers tend to apportion blame on both drivers in virtually all crashes.
Perhaps. But I just can't shake the feeling that we're not getting the full picture.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Which is why we try to draw them out!
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Have you never driven past a line of cars that are waiting in a left turn lane, or are stuck in the left lane because it leads to the (overflowing) left turn lane and the left arrow is off?
Just to be clear, I am not suggesting there was any intentional misrepresentation.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Did that actually happen???...I don't know, but the diagram would imply that to me, so I would think, subject to those with better knowledge, that the vehicle on the left failed to maintain lane or failed to yield while changing lanes...
All this is subject to the possibility that I am plumb wrong...:)
Oh, we don't believe that for a second! :P
Maybe next time we'll have additional information such as a sketch of the skid marks.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
i HAVE AND WAS ISSUED A TICKET BY THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL. I did it at the intersection of hiways 160 and 12. Just passed the Antioch bridge going north on 4/160 all traffic is backed up waiting for the light to go west on hiway 12. I continue north on 160 to sacramento. I passed probably 50 cars, all with left turn signals on on the right shoulder of the road. It's not a traffic lane as the officer pointed out and wrote the violation, he was right, I should have waited over 30 minutes to get my turn at the light!! $300.00 bucks fine.
Picard: "Worf, please play the video of when Planet X blew up and destroyed everything within 7 light years radius, except the camera that filmed it..."
Worf: "Yes, Captain, it does seem that the car on the left improperly changed lanes and should be phasered...I'll send out a probe..."
Picard: "Beam a traffic ticket down to the Driver with the Transporter..."
Worf: "Yes, Sir...there will be no scofflaws on any planet we know of"
Picard: Shut up, Data! Counselor?
Troy: I feel the parties are conflicted and are experiencing a certain duality about their encounter. They don't know what happened and are confused.
Laforge: But as Freud would say, sometimes a fender bender is just a fender bender!
Riker: Jean-Luc, she does have a point you know.
Picard: Thank you, Number One.
Wesley: Captain Picard! Captain Picard! I've invented a family of nanobots that I can put into their frontal lobes. These nanobots use tachyon subspace tunneling to create a temporal loop in the neocortex. They will project detailed memories of the accident through their pupils so we can see what really happened … over and over!
Picard: Make it so!
Worf: Today is a good day to spy!
Someone writes in that both the automatic sliding doors fell off his Toyota Sienna XLE at 28K. The writer says he got blown off by the dealer. The Magliozzi brothers said Toyota had no TSB on the problem but were sure that Toyota would issue one soon---or else the brothers would had to "write" about the problem again and embarrass Toyota.
Doors falling off? That sounds pretty bush league for Toyota.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That Sienna column struck me as ridiculous on several levels.
Who would be liable if one of the doors literally fell off the vehicle and caused a crash or injured someone? The owner and/or Toyota, depending on the particular facts of the case.
That being said, the traffic in the middle lane has a very clear duty to slow and/or continue at a rational and reasonable speed considering the circumstances around them. When you are moving next to an extremely long line of stopped traffic, in a wide open lane, it would seem prudent to slow and monitor that traffic to ensure noone gets impatient or changes their mind. I would think the reasonable and prudent rule would apply here ... as opposed to the "it's my lane, and I have the right-of-way" rule. Still, the larger duty certainly rests on the lane-changing party ... and in the presented case (diagram) I would tend to stick with Driver 2 being the at-fault driver, but you present not an intersection situation, but a freeway situation ... I would suggest that all day long in court a jury would assess a significant (less than 50, more than 10) percent of liability to the party moving without taking due caution.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong ... but I may have seen this situation a time or two ... I think.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
IHMO, the bottom line is that one must not change lanes without safety. I've never seen any proposition of law that one has a duty to anticipate the negligence of another party. If I did, I wouldn't be able to go through a green traffic light without slowing on the chance that another driver will blow through her/his red light.
Like any good lawyer, one would sue the driver and Toyota, bringing in any possible entity, but I would thnk Toy would be the one on the hook...
Just my thinking, way past my bedtime...
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I guess that's the problem I am having with this one. If it is so cut and dry then I have to wonder (a) why was the question posed in the first place or (b) was it a trick question?
I don't mean to be argumentative but I will note that the police officer did not witness the accident and his report is based on what he saw, after the fact, and from what the two drivers told him at the scene. The statements ascribed to the drivers in the report are not particularly informative or revealing. Driver #1 says #2 bumped into him and Driver #2 says #1 bumped into her.
The OP is basically asking whether he has a case (I infer he is the "he" based on his characterization of the prevailing conditions in the far left lane when Driver #2 moved over into the middle lane) and I would think that any lawyer advising him on the matter would want to know a lot more of the details than we have gotten here.
I am NOT suggesting this is the case but, hypothetically speaking, there may be aggravating circumstances that we're not privy to here such as a theoretical Driver #1 taking it upon himself to prevent the other driver from entering his lane. Theoretical Driver #2 may not even be aware of that while #1 would certainly not disclose that to the officer at the scene.
I think we have all seen situations where people become "territorial" about the lane in which they are driving and actively impede the movement of other drivers into their lane. The only way to ferret out what likely happened is to evauate the detailed testimony from both sides in the case.
Knowing a lot more about the case than we do, Actual Driver #1 should pursue a legal remedy if he truly believes Actual Driver #2 is at fault but he can expect her to defend herself vigorously and raise a lot of questions. I just don't think we have enough information here to adjudicate.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
I couldn't agree more. I've almost stopped reading that column as it is so aggravating to read some of the stupid questions they take. Seems the criteria for getting your letter published and question answered, is to ask a stupid and silly enough question that Click and Clack can get off 4 or 5 good one liners off it for laughs. They can be amusing, but I'd prefer more nuts and bolts type questions that you could actually learn/benefit from.
From the diagram, I gave my thought of fault...obviously, if a client walked in with that police report, there would be a complete interview, which is often not possible on Edmunds, or else each post would go on forever (as some of them do)...
Further, things often change when the "at fault" insurance is contacted...when they state that their insured (what we are calling the "at fault driver") stated that the accident report is wrong and the other person ran into them, they will often dispute liability...when they do, we now have a "he said she said" situation, which I lay directly in the client's lap...do they want to sue???...are they willing to fund the case???...remember, EVERYBODY wants to sue when the lawyer funds the case, but cases get dropped when THEY must fund their own (questionable) case...
Plus, I must inform them, just because the police report sides with them, does not mean that a jury will, as the other guy may be just as convincing in his testimony...and, in GA, if the jury splits liability evenly, no one recovers from the other...no attorney will take the risk in a case like that, which can lose as easily as it can win...
So, to give Bob a stump to stand on, I will move closer to the end of the year with this: here is the perfect reason for medpay, collision (assuming the vehicle has some value) and rental car insurance...
If the "innocent" driver loses on the liability, there is no one to pay for his injuries, no one to repair his car, and no one to pay for the rental car while his was being repaired/totalled...so, without these coverages, he is not in an advantageous position...this is a perfect example of a police report that seems to assign liability, but yet the "at fault" insurance may fail to accept liability, simply (and legally) because their driver swears to them that the accident did not happen as the officer diagrammed it, and if the vehicle damage can support either story, they will not accept liability simply because of a police report...so, without your own coverages, you are sunk...
I have stated in the past, and maintain, that police reports are usually enough to establish liability because of the way most wrecks occur...rearenders are usually cut and dried...if someone ran a red light and witnesses saw it, you're OK...if someone darts out of a side street onto a roadway that obviously maintains the right of way, you're OK...but lane changes can often be disputed without witnesses...
After years of paying priemiums to GEICO, I tried to file a claim due to my having some idiot run a red light and clip me on December 18 2007...
My car while old (1996) it was in perfect running condition. ALL lights worked (inspite of a chip in the LR brake light case) and the car was just smogged this summer and after necessary work passed with flying colors. The tires and brakes (AND routers) were replaced new also this last summer. Good milage and no problems with ANYTHING on the car. Yea, it was dirty and had some dings and dents here and there. It was in no way a "Beater", which is what the insurance company is trying to say. It may not have looked top end, but mecanically, it was in fantastic shape....it ran like a top.
The adjuster claims my car to be worth $747.21. This is a car that the Kelly bluebook shows at almost $4,000. as a dealer price. They say that any "comperable vehicle" sells for less than $1500 in this area and with the deductable. Checking with most car lots in Fresno you see a sale price of $2,500 to $3,500. While I will not say my car was worth $3,500, it was a damn sure worth a lot more than $750. GEICO checks with SALVAGE YARDS to get there prices. Not even reputable auto sales business.
According to guidlines they are to use the "personal purchase" value of a car, not the "trade" or "dealer purchase" value. They go to scrapyards - and I know of NO-ONE who would go to a salvage yard to buy a car.
I only ask that I be "made whole", which is what the insurance institute says they must do. I simply want either my car back or a vehicle of the same year/make/model in the same condition my car was before the accident. They are attempting to get around that by their underhanded practices.
DON'T throw your money away to GEICO! I am looking at filing a lawsuit due to misleading practices through the California Insurance Commission. These theives MUST be stopped.
REMEMBER the next time you see a GEICO commercial that that little green lizzard is sneeking into your pocket to steal your money and he will do his best to make sure you don't get back what you deserve.
GEICO INSURANCE CO ARE NOTHING BUT A BUNCH OF THEIVES.
PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. THE COUNTRY NEEDS TO BE MADE AWAIR THAT THESE PEOPLE WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY AND LEAVE YOU WITH NOTHING.
Do yourselves a favor. Tell all your friends as a favor. Tell them about this and about GEICO's practices. It could save them in the longrun. Forward this to EVERYONE you know.
I need HELP in finding out HOW to cost these people some of the precious $$$ they have stolen from US.
G. M. R. Hickman
I assume that this is a collision claim - what was your deductible? Heck - what make and model car did you have and what was the mileage on it? What do you mean you about wanting your car back - did you already sign it over to GEICO?
File a claim in small claims court and present whatever evidence you can marshall as the car's value to the judge so s/he can decide the issue.
This is just business for GEICO. Treat it the same yourself (and be sure to also get sales tax on the value of your claim).
Nationwide is running ads now touting how 90% of folks who've had claims with them are satisfied with their service. If 90% claims satisfaction is high for the industry, then you far from alone.
You can hire and appraiser to dispute the adjuster's amount, but this will cost you additional $$$. Furthermore, if they turn down your appraisal, you have to go to arbitration which costs you more money. In your case, arbitration is not binding because you are dealing with a 3rd party claim. I think you'd have to go through arbitration before any legal action.
Given the way insurance laws are set up, you're in a tough spot here with an old car that had cosmetic issues and probably high mileage.
I encourage you to pound on the table but it doesn't seem like this is worth fighting too hard unless you want to spend another $600 and maybe just break even with a slighter higher award from an arbitrator.
Car values are based on how they look, not on their maintenance records. As long as they are both running, a nice looking car with bad brakes and tires will always easily outsell a bad-looking car with new brakes and tires.
That's how the market works.
don't mean to discourage you, but as we used to say in the army "is this the hill you want to die on?"
Which insurance company should a claim be filed with -- ours or his? If it is ours, she has had two accidents in the past year, so our rates recently went up $800/year. We've had no other claims except these two for at least five years.
Would we be better off to pay out of pocket? Are we required to give the person that he hit our insurance information if we don't want to file a claim?
If we file another claim, are we at risk of being cancelled by our insurance company?
Insurance follows the car, not the person.
Are we required to give the person that he hit our insurance information if we don't want to file a claim?
Of course! Just because YOU don't file a claim, doesn't mean they can't. Unless you mean, should you pay for the person's damages and your own out of your pocket. I would seriously consider it, as long as the other party will allow it. Just make sure you get them to sign a waiver of some sort so they can't sue you later.
If we file another claim, are we at risk of being cancelled by our insurance company?
That is a question only your insurance company can answer.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Not always the case. In MA, the insurance follows the person, not the car.
To the OP - since he was at fault, the ultimate onus for all damages will fall onto his insurance through subrogation. You're best bet is to contact your agent for advice.
Really? huh.
So what happens when someone without insurance (but a license, of course) borrows your car and causes an accident? Are those affected SOL?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Perhaps. In MA, if a person without insurance is using your car with authorization, your coverage will transfer to them. But insurance is required in MA for every registered vehicle and since the vast majority of licensed drivers are vehicle owners, you have very few drivers without insurance. If they are insured, then the operator's policy will eventually be the one responsible for the payments.
Now NH doesn't require auto insurance and as such it could become a problem for anyone involved in an accident with a NH operator without coverage unless they purchase uninsured driver coverage (some of which is required by MA).